The Supreme Court, Criminal Section V, has again ruled on the criminal consequences of improper use of a messaging processor. Sentence number. 33219/2021 (Text below)
Today there is a phrase that describes what social networks are and how people approach them, it was pronounced Social Website, A film describing the rise of Mark Zuckerberg: “On the Internet you do not write with pencil, mark, but with ink”. Well, that’s really the case. Sometimes we are naive, deleting a hurtful comment, a “status” or a photo can somehow act as a kind of hard repentance, but it is completely useless. Similarly, we think it is enough to insult on social media without mentioning the specific subject because there are a lot of people on the web who can not find the recipient, but this is also wrong.
Published, with or without the name of the offended person, and may have significant implications in criminal law, depending on the content of the publication. The crime of libel.
Following a coherent path of verdicts related to crimes that tarnish the reputation of others through the use of social networks, the Cassation Court reaffirmed this with a recent ruling.
1. Slander and social networks
The The crime of libel RuledArt. 595 cp, No barriers “Anyone (…) interacts with too many people, hurts‘The fame of others “. Also, if it is emphasized in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the same article, l‘There is guilt‘Attribute of a particular fact, increases the fine, as well as l‘The crime is committed through the press or through any other advertisement. In this last situation, we are talking about the so-called bad slander. The crime referred to in Art. 595 of the Criminal Code, the offense is characterized by contact with multiple persons. Pluralபாட of subjects who can feel the humiliation and understand its meaning. Precisely from this last point of view, the rules give more importance by any means‘May harm the reputation of others, i.e. newspaper or other advertisement. The reason is simple: the more viewers there are, the greater the reputation damage caused by the crime.
At this point, however, the judiciary does not immediately consider it possible to frame the crime of defamation by publishing content on social networks. The judges, in fact, considered it first‘The communication element with multiple individuals did not match the use of a personal profile, which was identified as a virtual environment. “Closed “, so there are no elements of dissemination and publicity required for art. 595, paragraph 3 of the Criminal Code.
But with that things have changed Sentence number. 16712/2014 Posting an offensive sentence on a social network was accessible to multiple subjects with a single post on the social network, so there is no denying that it integrated the essentials. Bad slander elements.
This led to lengthy and substantial successive judgments in which the legitimate judges consolidated the orientation revealed in 2014. A year later, for example, it reiterated the spread of defamatory news through the courts.‘The use of the Facebook wall combines bad slander because it is a behavior that can lead to an indefinite or quantitatively significant number of lessons in any given situation. The worst situation finds him Ratio In the context of media used for rapid advertising and dissemination (Cos. Pen., Chess. I, sent. nn 24431/2015) With another sentence – n. 7904/2019 – The Fifth Criminal Division of the Cassation Court, in turn, ruled on WhatsApp, another product of Mark Zuckerberg’s instant messaging app. In this judgment, the judges found the libel offense to be constructive and not a serious offense (since it is not punishable by law)Its Crimes deleted) If crimes are written in group chat. Even if the recipient of the message sent to the group is the offended person and they are able to respond immediately, it will not be enough to dismiss the defamation because the message is still clearly visible in a certain number. Coordinating the need for team members, dissemination and advertising.
The module is available at Shop.Wki.it:
Slander
Pezzella Vincenzo, LEGAL UTET, 2020
2. The latest judgment of the court
With sentence number. No. 33219 of 8 September 2021, the criminal case turned out to be an improper use of WhatsApp to spread crimes against the reputation of a subject, but this time with a novelty: no longer by sending messages in group chats, but by the level of attack on a publication.
In this case, in fact, a woman voluntarily posted content that was harmful to a woman’s reputation on her WhatsApp status, and when she saw that content, she understood that it was the subject and reported it. After receiving the first and second sentences for the crime of defamation, the person appealed to the Supreme Court.‘There was no evidence that messages were sent to the injured person and all contacts in his address book were able to see them.
The court first noted the ineffectiveness of the possibility of excluding view of the status of WhatsApp for all or some of the existing contacts, a function that allows to control the spread of defamatory statements. Moreover, it is not possible for man to set aside the view of its contents only to the offended person, because it also prevents the visibility of his entire column.Its Then it would have been enough to send a separate message to that woman. This means that, according to the court, all the contacts in the phone book of the Dell smartphone can see the contents.‘Integrating exposure and advertising needs for human, crime purposes ex Art. 595 cp
For this reason, posting insulting information about a person identified or identified on a person’s WhatsApp status integrates the crime of libel in parallel with a message sent in a group chat or a post shared on their Facebook wall. The offensive ability given by a large audience of subjects who can see – or see – the content.
3. Conclusions: Consistency of court case law
With the sentence handed down last September 8, the Supreme Court has confirmed for the eleventh time that it places more emphasis on spreading content that hurts the reputation of others through social websites. Depending on its previous orientations. This makes it much harder to escape the consequences on a criminal level because a judicial law is now created by decisions that follow a precise line: if hurtful content is published on a social network and can be viewed by a certain number of people. People, then it was integrated into the worst defamation crime ex Art. 595, paragraph 3, cp
However, in the last judgment, the court reiterated a certain seriousness in this matter. It is not untrue that WhatsApp’s status – and other social networks’ may be hidden from some or all of their contacts, but even in this case the judges use a fair and grounded approach. Attack capability. Firstly, they felt that the person was not likely to hide his vision from anyone other than the victim, while secondly they suggested the possibility that all the singers in the passage should see the content. They do not have direct confirmation from every area.
Once again, the judiciary is wary when it comes to using web-sharing sites because it is not so difficult to get caught up in a criminal case and withdraw, apologize or cancel.
Criminal case, judgment no. 33219/2021 >> Download PDF Text
In alliance with
>> Find out All dates of courses on privacy By Altalex!
Beatrice Ashford is a contributor at Nintendo-power.com, covering a wide range of topics including news, politics, business, technology, sport, entertainment, and lifestyle. She focuses on delivering clear, balanced reporting and useful information that helps readers stay informed about current events and emerging developments. Her work highlights stories that matter to everyday audiences, with an emphasis on accuracy, relevance, and accessible journalism that keeps readers connected to the issues shaping the world around them.